In order to answer this
question, write down:
The specific term for your research’s philosophical stance (with at least one reference) or one of the four following generic terms: qualitative objectivism, quantitative objectivism, qualitative subjectivism, and quantitative subjectivism.
Examples of answer to this question:
Definition
In the Idea Puzzle® software “philosophical stance” is defined as “a consistent set of ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions which contextualise the research methodologically”.
Introduction
The philosophical stance is important for your research because it contextualises it methodologically. Philosophical stances are often referred to as “paradigms” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Lincoln & Guba, 2000), “positions” (e.g. Morgan & Smircich, 1980), “approaches” (e.g. Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997), and “perspectives” (e.g. Ackroyd & Fleetwood, 2000). According to Elster (1983) all sciences share the same generic method of inquiry. The main difference between them lies in the phenomena they research – inorganic matter, organic matter, social phenomena, or aesthetics – and the theories they develop about such phenomena.
Ontology refers to the nature of reality as either objective facts or subjective meanings. Epistemology, on the other hand, refers to the nature of knowledge as either fact-centric or meaning-centric. Methodology refers to the nature of the research strategy as either qualitative or quantitative and whether it is appropriate to study facts or meanings (e.g. Lincoln & Guba, 2000).
A philosophical stance (e.g. Morais, 2010) implies consistency in terms of ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions in your research. In particular, a focus on objective reality (ontology) is consistent with fact-centric knowledge (epistemology) and a qualitative or quantitative research strategy appropriate to study facts (methodology). By contrast, a focus on subjective reality is consistent with meaning-centric knowledge and a qualitative or quantitative research strategy appropriate to study meanings.
In spite of reality being both objective and subjective (e.g. Morais 2010) it is recommendable, for a matter of simplicity, that your research focuses only on the objective (facts) or subjective (meanings) side of your research topic. In the long run, it is possible to take different philosophical stances in different studies, in spite of claims that researchers’ values (axiology) change little (e.g. Burrell & Morgan, 1979). In this respect, Zaltman et al. (1982) argue that a researcher has fanatically-, firmly-, and weakly- held assumptions, but only the first ones are difficult to change. For that reason, it probably makes more sense to mention the philosophical stance of the research than that of the researcher.
In general, four main
philosophical stances can be distinguished: qualitative objectivism,
quantitative objectivism, qualitative subjectivism, and quantitative
subjectivism. Beware, however, that other authors may propose different terms
for these four generic philosophical stances (e.g. Burrell & Morgan, 1979;
Lincoln & Guba, 2000) as well as variants of them (e.g. Ackroyd & Fleetwood, 2000; Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997; Morgan &
Smircich, 1980).
Qualitative objectivism is appropriate
to develop theory about facts, given its emphasis on description and
explanation, and may occasionally test theory. Quantitative objectivism is
appropriate to test theory about facts, given its emphasis on measurement
and prediction, and may occasionally develop theory. Qualitative subjectivism
and quantitative subjectivism have the same emphasis as qualitative objectivism
and quantitative objectivism, respectively, but focus on meanings and not
facts. Each philosophical stance requires the
adoption of specific research strategies which, in turn, require certain data
collection techniques, data analysis techniques, and tactics in order to meet
the respective scientific quality criteria (Creswell, 2013).
Tips
1. Confirm the philosophical
stance which is adopted by streams of thought on your research topic;
2. Beware that reality is both
objective and subjective no matter the phenomenon being researched, but your
research is simpler by only focusing on facts or meanings;
3. Beware that each philosophical
stance implies the adoption of certain research strategies, data collection
techniques, data analysis techniques, and tactics in order to meet scientific
quality criteria;
4. Beware that adopting one
philosophical stance is more viable in terms of time and other resources than
several philosophical stances simultaneously.
Bibliography
1. Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood,
S. (2000). Realist perspectives on management and organisations. London, UK: Routledge.
2. Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
3. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London, UK: Heinemann.
4. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The handbook of qualitative research (2nd edition) (pp. 163-188). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7. Morais, R. (2010). Scientific
method. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.) Encyclopedia
of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 840-842). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8. Morais, R. (2011). Critical
realism and case studies in international business research. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.) Rethinking the case study approach in international business and management research (pp. 63-84). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
9. Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research, Academy of Research
Review, 5(4),
491-500.
10. Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Being interesting. In G. Zaltman, K. LeMasters & M. Heffring (Eds.) Theory construction in marketing: Some thoughts
on thinking (pp. 25-44). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Feedback
ricardo.morais@ideapuzzle.com |